Clare Co Co pass motion demanding no more household charge letters

Ghandee

The beginning of the end of the hhc is here.

Clare County Council has passed a motion that no further letters demanding payment of the household charge should be sent out by the council until such time as an appropriate database has been put in place.

The motion was passed following recent controversy, where many house-owners who had already paid the charge were sent letters reminding them to pay.

The issue was described as a 'fiasco' and a 'public disgrace'

In other instances letters were addressed to individuals who are deceased.

The issue was described as a “fiasco” and a “public disgrace”.

A separate motion asking that the Local Government Management Agency -charged with collecting the charge - be disbanded was also passed.

A statement from Clare County Council said that the council was operating on instructions from the LGMA.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/1113/clare-co-co-household-charge.html

Quite fitting that the very same council who attempted to jump the gun by trying to refuse to process education grants be the first council to order a halt in attempting to collect g he sham charge.

A small step towards the abolition of the controversial charge?

Mr.Micro

Ghandee wrote: »

The beginning of the end of the hhc is here.



http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/1113/clare-co-co-household-charge.html

Quite fitting that the very same council who attempted to jump the gun by trying to refuse to process education grants be the first council to order a halt in attempting to collect g he sham charge.

A small step towards the abolition of the controversial charge?

I got one of those letters in this County not 2 weeks ago and I paid in February. Absolute clowns.... it does not look good all that money going to the County Councils and they cannot even operate the current collection.

Ghandee

Mr.Micro wrote: »

I got one of those letters in this County not 2 weeks ago and I paid in February. Absolute clowns.... it does not look good all that money going to the County Councils and they cannot even operate the current collection.

This is/could be a very serious development seeing as..

the council was operating on instructions from the LGMA.

Without the publics assistance, creating a database is impossible.

The current registration process is open to widespread poison with false info being entered also, which obviously would have the govt chasing their tails for years it'd enough people corrupted it.

Mr.Micro

Ghandee wrote: »

This is/could be a very serious development seeing as..



Without the publics assistance, creating a database is impossible.

The current registration process is open to widespread poison with false info being entered also, which obviously would have the govt chasing their tails for years it'd enough people corrupted it.

They should have created a database before embarking on the collection process, as now they are targeting people who have paid in full ( like me), and thousands who have not paid will never be targeted. I am afraid the charge is here to stay whether we like it or not.

Manach

Finally the State is taking action against that last untouched section of society that are not paying their fair share to create our just and progressive society. For too long those that are living-challenged, ie the dead, have out away with murder by ignoring their obligation to the State. So it is right and just that the State keep sending letters demanding them to pay the household tax.

gerryo777

I got a reminder myself a couple of weeks ago addressed to myself and my wife using her maiden name.
The only company that has our names together like that is our mortgage provider as we bought before we were married.
I would have thought our dealings with our mortgage provider were a private matter between us and them?

Mr.Micro

gerryo777 wrote: »

I got a reminder myself a couple of weeks ago addressed to myself and my wife using her maiden name.
The only company that has our names together like that is our mortgage provider as we bought before we were married.
I would have thought our dealings with our mortgage provider were a private matter between us and them?

Well in my case they had been to the land registry, so it appears they can go where they like. They should have asked my bank to see what that €100 that disappeared from my account in February instead of sending me threatening letters.

gerryo777

Manach wrote: »

Finally the State is taking action against that last untouched section of society that are not paying their fair share to create our just and progressive society. For too long those that are living-challenged, ie the dead, have out away with murder by ignoring their obligation to the State. So it is right and just that the State keep sending letters demanding them to pay the household tax.

They're introducing a 'grave yard charge' or GYC in the next budget to target the dead. It's €100 per year, don't be moaning now, what dead person can't afford €2 per week? :eek:

Gumbi

gerryo777 wrote: »

They're introducing a 'grave yard charge' or GYC in the next budget to target the dead. It's €100 per year, don't be moaning now, what dead person can't afford €2 per week? :eek:

Lol. Why should some have to pay, while others refuse to do so? It's those same people who support the country with their taxes, making up for those who cheat the system and/or refuse to pay.

gerryo777

Gumbi wrote: »

Lol. Why should some have to pay, while others refuse to do so? It's those same people who support the country with their taxes, making up for those who cheat the system and/or refuse to pay.

To be fair, I haven't paid and I won't pay.

It's an unjust and discriminatory tax aimed only at people who work hard to put a roof over their own heads.
It's supposed to be for local services, the same services that renters and LA tenants use, yet these people aren't asked to pay their share.

Ghandee

Maybe they'll start to target the folk who got us into the ness we're in instead of the sitting ducks aka middle earning home owners!


Irish life CEO remuneration breaches government’s pay cap – Doherty (via TheJournal.ie) http://jrnl.ie/673539

Mr.Micro

gerryo777 wrote: »

To be fair, I haven't paid and I won't pay.

It's an unjust and discriminatory tax aimed only at people who work hard to put a roof over their own heads.
It's supposed to be for local services, the same services that renters and LA tenants use, yet these people aren't asked to pay their share.

I am sure in time all households will be expected to pay including council tenants. I have the added burden of having to pay for a septic tank and all that may go with that. I am no fan of County Councils, as I believe they are badly run and often of negligible competence...all those funds going to ineptitude is a cause for concern.

gerryo777

Mr.Micro wrote: »

I am sure in time all households will be expected to pay including council tenants. I have the added burden of having to pay for a septic tank and all that may go with that. I am no fan of County Councils, as I believe they are badly run and often of negligible competence...all those funds going to ineptitude is a cause for concern.

I have a Biocycle unit myself, I paid for it myself and I pay an annual service charge on it myself.
That's another service the LA doesn't provide me with.
Why not bring in a charge for urban dwellers to pay for disposing of their own foul waste instead of a blanket charge for owning a home?

yore

Mr.Micro wrote: »

They should have created a database before embarking on the collection process, as now they are targeting people who have paid in full ( like me), and thousands who have not paid will never be targeted. I am afraid the charge is here to stay whether we like it or not.

I thought the idea of the standard 100 Euro a house was to make people register in order to compile a database....... there's not much chance of getting people to send in a form to register for a tax coming in next year if there's no penalty for not doing so.

People who don't pay should simply have the charge plus penalties accumulated when finally uncovered. It should be like any other form of tax evasion

yore

gerryo777 wrote: »

To be fair, I haven't paid and I won't pay.

It's an unjust and discriminatory tax aimed only at people who work hard to put a roof over their own heads.
It's supposed to be for local services, the same services that renters and LA tenants use, yet these people aren't asked to pay their share.

What about the people who work hard but can't get a mortgage but pay their hard earned wages over to a "landlord" who might be just an "average" worker who bought a second or third house to rent out for their pension or kid's college or similar sob story. I get sick of hearing these people on the radio/tv moaning; seemingly oblivious to the fact that they are in essence saying "someone poorer than me should be paying my second mortgage for me so that I get a free house in 20 years."

If you have a house, you should be taxed on it. Simple as that. The amount is open to debate but there is no principle why your house should be exempt but your car/wages not!

gerryo777

yore wrote: »

What about the people who work hard but can't get a mortgage but pay their hard earned wages over to a "landlord" who might be just an "average" worker who bought a second or third house to rent out for their pension or kid's college or similar sob story. I get sick of hearing these people on the radio/tv moaning; seemingly oblivious to the fact that they are in essence saying "someone poorer than me should be paying my second mortgage for me so that I get a free house in 20 years."

If you have a house, you should be taxed on it. Simple as that. The amount is open to debate but there is no principle why your house should be exempt but your car/wages not!

That's your opinion and if your happy enough that one section of society should be discriminated against, that's your right.

Peanut2011

yore wrote: »

What about the people who work hard but can't get a mortgage but pay their hard earned wages over to a "landlord" who might be just an "average" worker who bought a second or third house to rent out for their pension or kid's college or similar sob story. I get sick of hearing these people on the radio/tv moaning; seemingly oblivious to the fact that they are in essence saying "someone poorer than me should be paying my second mortgage for me so that I get a free house in 20 years."

If you have a house, you should be taxed on it. Simple as that. The amount is open to debate but there is no principle why your house should be exempt but your car/wages not!

So you are saying that me who owns a house is somehow using the local services more than the person who does not own a house?

I just wonder how much money was wasted on these letters and all the other cost associated with it?

Ghandee

Peanut2011 wrote: »

So you are saying that me who owns a house is somehow using the local services more than the person who does not own a house?

I just wonder how much money was wasted on these letters and all the other cost associated with it?

I fully expect other councils will pass similar motions very soon.
Donegal will more than likely be next.

It was a poorly thought out, and botched rushed plan from the word go.

Dirk Gently

Manach wrote: »

Finally the State is taking action against that last untouched section of society that are not paying their fair share to create our just and progressive society. .

Did we finally get around to taxing churches?

yore

gerryo777 wrote: »

That's your opinion and if your happy enough that one section of society should be discriminated against, that's your right.

That's right. Discrimination, yes. Of course it is, Similar to the way that people who are bequeathed substantial inheritances are "discriminated" against with high amounts of death duty.
And the way people with salaries over 100k are discriminated against and have to pay multiples of the amount of tax of people on minimum wage.

Discrimination.
:rolleyes:

yore

Peanut2011 wrote: »

So you are saying that me who owns a house is somehow using the local services more than the person who does not own a house?

Eh, no. I never said or implied anything of the sort. That's a very silly statement to make about my previous post.

But now that you mention it though.......

Peanut2011 wrote: »

I just wonder how much money was wasted on these letters and all the other cost associated with it?

That's an issue of bad management and organization and of inefficiencies in their processes. Nothing to do with the principal of whether there should be a tax.

gerryo777

yore wrote: »

That's right. Discrimination, yes. Of course it is, Similar to the way that people who are bequeathed substantial inheritances are "discriminated" against with high amounts of death duty.
And the way people with salaries over 100k are discriminated against and have to pay multiples of the amount of tax of people on minimum wage.

Discrimination.
:rolleyes:

The thread your looking for is in after hours, household charge mega thread part 3, dv & son are waiting for you.
BTW, a tax on one section of society to pay for the services used by all is discrimination.

Peanut2011

yore wrote: »

That's an issue of bad management and organization and of inefficiencies in their processes. Nothing to do with the principal of whether there should be a tax.

Well the principle reason the tax was brought in was due to failing revenue for the Government. I still maintain if the issue of bad management and organization and inefficiencies was sorted there would be no need for the tax.

And you know what, if all those issues were sorted and they ran the place spot on, people would be a lot more receptive to idea of further contribution.

The problem is all that waste that people are paying for.

Gumbi

Peanut2011 wrote: »

Well the principle reason the tax was brought in was due to failing revenue for the Government. I still maintain if the issue of bad management and organization and inefficiencies was sorted there would be no need for the tax.

And you know what, if all those issues were sorted and they ran the place spot on, people would be a lot more receptive to idea of further contribution.

The problem is all that waste that people are paying for.

Hardly. Savings are there to be made, sure, but a fraction of what can be made with couch a tax proposition. The same goes for all these letters going out. Costly, yes. Inefficient? Probably. But the goal is to have each house owner to pay €200, substantially more than the input cost.

Floppybits

yore wrote: »

What about the people who work hard but can't get a mortgage but pay their hard earned wages over to a "landlord" who might be just an "average" worker who bought a second or third house to rent out for their pension or kid's college or similar sob story. I get sick of hearing these people on the radio/tv moaning; seemingly oblivious to the fact that they are in essence saying "someone poorer than me should be paying my second mortgage for me so that I get a free house in 20 years."

If you have a house, you should be taxed on it. Simple as that. The amount is open to debate but there is no principle why your house should be exempt but your car/wages not!

Why should people who rent be exempt? I don't understand this. Tenants like everyone else are using the services (and I use that term loosely) provided by the local authorities so why shouldn't they be paying?

Why are you picking on Landlords as well saying you are paying their mortgage or kids fees or whatever. The way I see it is if you are renting a place you are availing of a product provided by a supplier be it a company or an individual and you are paying that individual for providing that product. if you don't think you are getting a good deal or service then you can simply switch providers. Unfortunately you cant do that with the local authority.

I lived in England where as a renter I had to pay the council charge of about £500 a year, this was separate to the rent I paid and I got a bill from the council as well. Now I didn't mind paying it because I did get a good service from the council. The problem in this country is that I don't feel I get a good service from the council anymore.

Peanut2011

Gumbi wrote: »

Hardly. Savings are there to be made, sure, but a fraction of what can be made with couch a tax proposition. The same goes for all these letters going out. Costly, yes. Inefficient? Probably. But the goal is to have each house owner to pay €200, substantially more than the input cost.

The issue with simply taxing people more and more cos you need more money is not a solution. You are only contracting the economy by taxing and at the same time more and more people are going to end up on welfare as they simply can't afford to pay any more.

Now that is hardly a smart thing to do. I think government and councils and any other agencies linked in to the structure will need to start working like every other private business and households.

If income gets tight you adjust spend, you don't simply demand better pay from the "employer". If we are to survive we need to start looking after Irish interests and not after Europe's interests.

Adding the tax just cos you were told you have to while not removing VRT of the car sales even-though it has been found it is in breach EU rules. It seems no matter what we will have to just bend over and take it!

saltyporridge

I just wonder how much money was wasted on these letters and all the other cost associated with it?[/QUOTE]

I signed up on January 4th to pay the charge in four instalments - I didn't expect to get four separate receipts posted (at least 55c each) to me but that's what happened. They could have emailed them - daft!

Quin_Dub

I got two of these letters a few weeks back - sent to me and my wife..

I had paid , but from what I can see the council are using one list of addresses and the central agency that took the payments is storing the addresses as entered by the person submitting payment..

In my case , the spelling of the townland where I live is recorded 3 different ways - There's the way that everybody that lives there spells it (and how the post-office spells it) , there's the variant that is on the OSI maps and then there is the version that Clare COCO have in their records (planning docs etc.)

So when Clare Coco looked they had no record of a payment against their version of my address and so sent out the letters.


The whole thing is just indicative of the total lack of integration between the various bodies and yet another example of the staggering inefficiency of our public functions

gerryo777

Quin_Dub wrote: »

I got two of these letters a few weeks back - sent to me and my wife..

I had paid , but from what I can see the council are using one list of addresses and the central agency that took the payments is storing the addresses as entered by the person submitting payment..

In my case , the spelling of the townland where I live is recorded 3 different ways - There's the way that everybody that lives there spells it (and how the post-office spells it) , there's the variant that is on the OSI maps and then there is the version that Clare COCO have in their records (planning docs etc.)

So when Clare Coco looked they had no record of a payment against their version of my address and so sent out the letters.



The whole thing is just indicative of the total lack of integration between the various bodies and yet another example of the staggering inefficiency of our public functions

Not being able to organise a piss up in a brewery comes to mind.

Mind you when it comes to county managers being paid and receiving bigger pensions when retired than many prime ministers in europe, they can organise that ok.

Did you know that the Dublin city librarian earns over €120,000 PA?

That's what your €100 goes to fund, don't be fooled.

Ghandee

Radio interview from this morning where big Phil admits they still don't have a clue who owns what/lives where and how the govt will track down non payers efficiently.
(towards the end of the interview)

Proof that sending these fools money, is wasting your money.

Expect this sham to be disbanded before mid-2013.

Clowns.

Mr.Micro

Ghandee wrote: »

Radio interview from this morning where big Phil admits they still don't have a clue eggo owns what/lives where and how the govt will track down non payers efficiently.
(towards the end of the interview)

Proof that sending these fools money, is wasting your money.

Expect this sham to be disbanded before mid-2013.

Clowns.

I agree that money being wasted big time by the clowns, but will carry on regardless. The whole County Council structure should be looked at before this household charge was introduced. No wonder its a mess and the unaccountable unelected County manager on top of the pile.

gerryo777

Remember folks that as it stands the money collected from the HHC and next year as a property tax (if it gets that far) does not / will not go directly to your local councils.
It still goes and will go next year to central government and will be divvied out as the thug hogan and his cronies decide.

Godge

So the Councillors passed a motion? Who is going to listen to them?

They have no power to intervene in executive matters. They can pass motions all they like calling on the council to do x or y but it means nothing.

They could pass a motion tomorrow calling on the council to stop collecting motor tax or to stop charing for driving licenses. They could even pass a motion calling on Revenue to stop collecting income tax. It would have as much of an effect.

It is like this, if you are happy not to pay, to live in your house until you die then you can escape paying it. When your executor moves to dispose of the house, the household charge plus interest will be paid from your estate.

yore

Floppybits wrote: »

Why should people who rent be exempt? I don't understand this. Tenants like everyone else are using the services (and I use that term loosely) provided by the local authorities so why shouldn't they be paying?

Why are you picking on Landlords as well saying you are paying their mortgage or kids fees or whatever. The way I see it is if you are renting a place you are availing of a product provided by a supplier be it a company or an individual and you are paying that individual for providing that product. if you don't think you are getting a good deal or service then you can simply switch providers. Unfortunately you cant do that with the local authority.

I lived in England where as a renter I had to pay the council charge of about £500 a year, this was separate to the rent I paid and I got a bill from the council as well. Now I didn't mind paying it because I did get a good service from the council. The problem in this country is that I don't feel I get a good service from the council anymore.

The houseowner/landlord is the beneficiary of the services. So they should pay. The renter is already paying.

If you can't understand that fact then you obviously aren't aware that to let a house in a well serviced Dublin estate might earn you a little bit more income than to rent one in a ghost estate in the back ar$e of ballygobackward. Not to mention the value-add to your house due to the supplied services.

The landlords will end up paying anyway. It's fairer to put the charge on them directly rather than to let it drip up the layers to them in the form of reduced rent. Yes you paid in your charge in London, but I'd bet you that your rent was relatively reduced because of it. It was implicit and you might not have been as aware of it, but it was.

dvpower

Godge wrote: »

So the Councillors passed a motion? Who is going to listen to them?

They have no power to intervene in executive matters. They can pass motions all they like calling on the council to do x or y but it means nothing.

They could pass a motion tomorrow calling on the council to stop collecting motor tax or to stop charing for driving licenses. They could even pass a motion calling on Revenue to stop collecting income tax. It would have as much of an effect.

At the same time they passed this motion they also passed a motion calling for the LGMA to disband.

The OP fails to differentiate between calling for a course of action and putting one in train.
Naturally enough, some of the anti property tax crowd have hailed this as the beginning of the end - more wishful thinking than reality.

Mr.Micro

dvpower wrote: »

At the same time they passed this motion they also passed a motion calling for the LGMA to disband.

The OP fails to differentiate between calling for a course of action and putting one in train.
Naturally enough, some of the anti property tax crowd have hailed this as the beginning of the end - more wishful thinking than reality.

No doubt the Councillors thinking about re-election down the line want to row back from this, as if they can. All is fine until it affects their prospects of getting elected again.

gerryo777

Mr.Micro wrote: »

No doubt the Councillors thinking about re-election down the line want to row back from this, as if they can. All is fine until it affects their prospects of getting elected again.

And that's the way Irish politics works, it'll never be any different.

On the run in to the local elections and especially on the run in to the next general election the parties will vow to abolish the property tax.

It's mostly FG and their cheerleaders on here who agree with the property tax (along with renters and LA tenants of course!)

I can see the HHC being extended into next year just to appease the troika, when were done with them and elections fast coming down the line it'll be scrapped.

I predicted this last year on here and I stick by that prediction.

yore

gerryo777 wrote: »

And that's the way Irish politics works, it'll never be any different.

On the run in to the local elections and especially on the run in to the next general election the parties will vow to abolish the property tax.

It's mostly FG and their cheerleaders on here who agree with the property tax (along with renters and LA tenants of course!)

I can see the HHC being extended into next year just to appease the troika, when were done with them and elections fast coming down the line it'll be scrapped.

I predicted this last year on here and I stick by that prediction.

Are you a landlord Gerryo777? Rent out any properties?

gerryo777

yore wrote: »

Are you a landlord Gerryo777? Rent out any properties?

Are you a FG supporter, yore? PS worker perhaps?

yore

gerryo777 wrote: »

Are you a FG supporter, yore? PS worker perhaps?

No. I'm neither. Neither am I from Co. Clare .

I don't have a house, either to live in or spare ones that I think other poorer people should be paying for for me.

But this isn't even a thread on FG or the PS


You ignored my question and tried to bypass it by answering your own. I'll take that as a yes. Obviously it's the internet and anyone can claim anything anyway.

gerryo777

yore wrote: »

No. I'm neither. Neither am I from Co. Clare .

I don't have a house, either to live in or spare ones that I think other poorer people should be paying for for me.

But this isn't even a thread on FG or the PS

Neither is it a thread about landlords and renters.

BTW, do you think only 'poorer' people rent?

BTW 2, If you have a chip on your shoulder about landlords, maybe you should have a word with someone in government. They are after all, the biggest landlords of all time through the scam that is NAMA.

yore

gerryo777 wrote: »

BTW, do you think only 'poorer' people rent?

No. That's silly. Why would I think that
Not "only 'poorer' people rent" but you'll find that practically "all 'poorer' people rent"

gerryo777 wrote: »

BTW 2, If you have a chip on your shoulder about landlords, maybe you should have a word with someone in government. They are after all, the biggest landlords of all time through the scam that is NAMA.

As long as they are appropriately taxed on their assets, I don't give a shi about what they own.



Do you understand that the household charge will come off your income as a landlord anyway? Regardless of whom it is collected from?


You missed the last edit of my last post!

gerryo777

yore wrote: »

Do you understand that the household charge will come off your income as a landlord anyway? Regardless of whom it is collected from?

That would be on top of an NPPR charge, income tax liability on rental income, maintenance of said property, management fees, registration charges etc etc..

Yep, landlords are coining it at a time when rents have fallen dramatically.

I think your anger is misplaced.

Chips Lovell

It's a property tax, so if prople don't own a property it stands to reason they shouldn't be liable.

As for the decision to use it to fund local services. First of all it isn't funding local services exclusively. Much of the local authorities budgets still comes from general taxation, which everyone pays. Secondly, it property owners are asked to pay proportionally more, it's because they stand to gain most out of local services, i.e. they affect the value of their property.

yore

gerryo777 wrote: »

That would be on top of an NPPR charge, income tax liability on rental income, maintenance of said property, management fees, registration charges etc etc..

Yep, landlords are coining it at a time when rents have fallen dramatically.

I think your anger is misplaced.

I have no anger. I just think that the wealthy should pay their fair share.

The country is currently going through a bad time. I don't think that we should be supporting a nouveau elite aristocracy who feel entitled to wealth "just because".
Do you think we should give a free pass to every eejit who bought three or four extra apartments to leech off other people who just didn't have access to the same finance at the time? Fair enough if you developed and designed a sustainable property that added to society, but most just outbid their "poorer" neighbour on a house and then rented it back to him so that he could pay for it for the landlord. Asking to give that landlord a free pass means society at large paying for that greedy person's assets. Then in 10 or 15 years when the economy is going again, that landlord will have their, now valuable again, asset and the poorer person will still have nothing. And that is supposed to be fair?

Outbidding your neighbour on a property and then renting the property back to him does not contribute to society. It just leeches off it! So if you are a landlord and you were caught swimming naked when the tide went out, then tough shite my friend!

gerryo777

yore wrote: »

I have no anger. I just think that the wealthy should pay their fair share.

The country is currently going through a bad time. I don't think that we should be supporting a nouveau elite aristocracy who feel entitled to wealth "just because".
Do you think we should give a free pass to every eejit who bought three or four extra apartments to leech off other people who just didn't have access to the same finance at the time? Fair enough if you developed and designed a sustainable property that added to society, but most just outbid their "poorer" neighbour on a house and then rented it back to him so that he could pay for it for the landlord. Asking to give that landlord a free pass means society at large paying for that greedy person's assets. Then in 10 or 15 years when the economy is going again, that landlord will have their, now valuable again, asset and the poorer person will still have nothing. And that is supposed to be fair?

Outbidding your neighbour on a property and then renting the property back to him does not contribute to society. It just leeches off it! So if you are a landlord and you were caught swimming naked when the tide went out, then tough shite my friend!

Who are 'the wealthy' you speak about?

On another note, you do understand that people who rent are getting the use of the property without having a mortgage over their heads, without having to pay for maintenance of the property, without having to pay a property tax, without having to pay for the local services they use that we hear so much about etc etc.

I think you'll also find that the 'poor' you keep going on about aren't as poor as you think.

BTW, you'll aso find that the country/economy we're all meant to look up to (Germany) has a far higher percentage of renters than we have here, and the renters there have to pay a local service charge too.

Chips Lovell

Actually Germany has a property tax, the grundsteuer, that's quite similar to what's being proposed here, i.e. percentage of value, paid to municipal authority.

The only difference is that landlords in Germany are legally entitled to write it into a tenancy agreement that the tenant pay it for them. In effect that's much the same as a landlord here just jacking up the rent to compensate for their own property tax. In both cases the liability is on the property not the individual.

yore

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

Actually Germany has a property tax, the grundsteuer, that's quite similar to what's being proposed here, i.e. percentage of value, paid to municipal authority.

The only difference is that landlords in Germany are legally entitled to write it into a tenancy agreement that the tenant pay it for them. In effect that's much the same as a landlord here just jacking up the rent to compensate for their own property tax. In both cases the liability is on the property not the individual.

Or to look at it another way, as I mentioned previously, it all eventually comes out of the landlords pockets anyway.

To put it in basic economic terms; the elasticity of demand if far greater than the elasticity of supply. Therefore the supply side will absorb the charge. Regardless of who the bill is sent to

gerryo777

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

Actually Germany has a property tax, the grundsteuer, that's quite similar to what's being proposed here, i.e. percentage of value, paid to municipal authority.

The only difference is that landlords in Germany are legally entitled to write it into a tenancy agreement that the tenant pay it for them. In effect that's much the same as a landlord here just jacking up the rent to compensate for their own property tax. In both cases the liability is on the property not the individual.

That's quite a major difference to what's proposed here.

But it's to be expected in Ireland. Cloak and dagger stuff, the landlord can 'jack up' the rent if they can get away with it etc etc.

In Germany it's straight up and it is an extra charge on top of your rent to pay for local services you would receive.

I wouldn't expect it to be any other way in this backward looking sh1tehole.

Godge

gerryo777 wrote: »

Who are 'the wealthy' you speak about?

On another note, you do understand that people who rent are getting the use of the property without having a mortgage over their heads, without having to pay for maintenance of the property, without having to pay a property tax, without having to pay for the local services they use that we hear so much about etc etc.

I think you'll also find that the 'poor' you keep going on about aren't as poor as you think.

BTW, you'll aso find that the country/economy we're all meant to look up to (Germany) has a far higher percentage of renters than we have here, and the renters there have to pay a local service charge too.

Who are the wealthy?

Anyone who owns a house, even if they are paying back a secured loan on it, is wealthier than a homeless person, than someone in a council house or than someone renting.

gerryo777

Godge wrote: »

Who are the wealthy?

Anyone who owns a house, even if they are paying back a secured loan on it, is wealthier than a homeless person, than someone in a council house or than someone renting.

LOL.
So, someone who owns a house worth €100k and owes €300k on it is wealthy?
The lugha school of bu11****e economics, I suppose we'll be told about the 'notional' income derived from it next.

I despair sometimes.....